"It's modern-day slavery, you know? People kind of laugh at that, but there are people working at regular jobs who get treated the same way, too. With all the money ... the owners are trying to get a different percentage, and bring in more money. I understand that; these are business-minded people. Of course this is what they are going to want to do. I understand that; it's how they got to where they are now. But as players, we have to stand our ground and say, 'Hey -- without us, there's no football,' " he said.

Swerb wrote:Go start a blog if you want to tell the world your incomprehendible ramblings.

Cerebral_DownTime wrote:I have a big arm and can throw the ball pretty damn far...... maybe even over those moutains. The Browns should sign me, i'll let you all in locker room to drink beer. Then we can all go out the parking lot to watch me do motorcycle stunts.

I think that the term, "Slavery" should be like a pee-wee herman esque buzzword when used inappropriately. Everyone should start waving their hands over their heads and shouting when it gets put out, because you've already brought the conversation to non-sensical levels.

As a jewish american, I do not start yelling "IM BEING PERSECUTED" every time I don't get my way.

Check me out at Dawgsbynature, where I write stuff, or @twitter as Josh Finney.

"It's modern-day slavery, you know? People kind of laugh at that, but there are people working at regular jobs who get treated the same way, too. With all the money ... the owners are trying to get a different percentage, and bring in more money. I understand that; these are business-minded people. Of course this is what they are going to want to do. I understand that; it's how they got to where they are now. But as players, we have to stand our ground and say, 'Hey -- without us, there's no football,' " he said.

If every single NFL player died tomorrow, the NFL would still continue, because there would still be plenty of people out there eager to become an EMPLOYEE of the NFL.

Fans might take a little while to adapt to the new EMPLOYEES that they don't know as well, but after about 6 games, they'd know who the new playmakers were and buy THEIR jerseys.

PS - If the not-union-formerly-known-as-NFLPA is promoting this kind of talk thinking it will help get the public on their side, they are sadly mistaken. Likely, AP got a little call right after this article saying "Ix-nay on the Avery-slay."

"It's modern-day slavery, you know? People kind of laugh at that, but there are people working at regular jobs who get treated the same way, too. With all the money ... the owners are trying to get a different percentage, and bring in more money. I understand that; these are business-minded people. Of course this is what they are going to want to do. I understand that; it's how they got to where they are now. But as players, we have to stand our ground and say, 'Hey -- without us, there's no football,' " he said.

Not only that, what man wouldn't give his left arm to play in the NFL? it's such an exclusive club, that only a few can make it.

NFL is winning the PR battle and winning it handily at the moment. The published letter stating what they were willing to do, Holmgren and co. offering a full refund+interest for the fans and not trying to issue statements trying to drive players away from the draft, is certainly making the NFL PA look like amateur hour.

And I'm starting to agree with what I heard from one of my professors the other day. Because NFL teams are privately held entities and not public companies (except for ONE),they should not be required to open their books to the players.

Now, I'll argue and probably agree that more teams should be open to the public like the Packers, but that is not what's being argued here.

Swerb wrote:Go start a blog if you want to tell the world your incomprehendible ramblings.

Cerebral_DownTime wrote:I have a big arm and can throw the ball pretty damn far...... maybe even over those moutains. The Browns should sign me, i'll let you all in locker room to drink beer. Then we can all go out the parking lot to watch me do motorcycle stunts.

If every single NFL player died tomorrow, the NFL would still continue, because there would still be plenty of people out there eager to become an EMPLOYEE of the NFL.

Fans might take a little while to adapt to the new EMPLOYEES that they don't know as well, but after about 6 games, they'd know who the new playmakers were and buy THEIR jerseys.

PS - If the not-union-formerly-known-as-NFLPA is promoting this kind of talk thinking it will help get the public on their side, they are sadly mistaken. Likely, AP got a little call right after this article saying "Ix-nay on the Avery-slay."

I couldn't agree more Hiko.

I was just talking to my brother yesterday about the same thing. From an owners perspective, the current NFL players are highly replaceable.

Would they be of the same quality? Mostly not, but that wouldn't stop the game, a 2-4 year period of lower quality play and the league would move on largely unaffected.

I just dont see how, in the end, the players have a leg to stand on. Owners can replace the players, players cannot replace the owners in their equation without a much more massive hit to their salaries that the NFL owners are looking to cut.

If I'm an owner, ultimately I'm thinking, ok, so what are you telling me Tom Brady and Drew Brees, that you are going to take your talents to Ingonish Beach and play in the CFL for .25 on the dollar if you are lucky?

Agree 1000 percent. Players are totally replacable. The NFL is so much more than who the current stars are. Bring in a new crop with more sanity in the pay structure. I would watch replacements if you could get the price of beer down to 4 bucks a cup.

Another by the way: the same antitrust laws that would prohibit the owners from unilaterally terminating all the players contracts are the same ones that would prohibit them from hiring replacement players until the current players reached a contract. (The owners couldn't agree among themselves only to hire employees not among the several hundred current NFL players.) This is a lockout, after all, not a strike.

Another by the way: the same antitrust laws that would prohibit the owners from unilaterally terminating all the players contracts are the same ones that would prohibit them from hiring replacement players until the current players reached a contract. (The owners couldn't agree among themselves only to hire employees not among the several hundred current NFL players.) This is a lockout, after all, not a strike.

I was thinking more along the lines of wrongful termination suits, but regardless it would open the door for much litigation, if they even could do it. Not to mention completely making any chance at negotiation FUBAR.

Another by the way: the same antitrust laws that would prohibit the owners from unilaterally terminating all the players contracts are the same ones that would prohibit them from hiring replacement players until the current players reached a contract. (The owners couldn't agree among themselves only to hire employees not among the several hundred current NFL players.) This is a lockout, after all, not a strike.

I was thinking more along the lines of wrongful termination suits, but regardless it would open the door for much litigation, if they even could do it. Not to mention completely making any chance at negotiation FUBAR.

Well, any team can terminate/fire any player they want at any time (assuming no issues of discrimination, whistleblowing, etc., and I don't see any that apply in this case). It's called getting cut. They just have to pay the guaranteed portion of the contract. (And that, I think, is the issue.)

Another by the way: the same antitrust laws that would prohibit the owners from unilaterally terminating all the players contracts are the same ones that would prohibit them from hiring replacement players until the current players reached a contract. (The owners couldn't agree among themselves only to hire employees not among the several hundred current NFL players.) This is a lockout, after all, not a strike.

I was thinking more along the lines of wrongful termination suits, but regardless it would open the door for much litigation, if they even could do it. Not to mention completely making any chance at negotiation FUBAR.

Well, any team can terminate/fire any player they want at any time (assuming no issues of discrimination, whistleblowing, etc., and I don't see any that apply in this case). It's called getting cut. They just have to pay the guaranteed portion of the contract. (And that, I think, is the issue.)

True, but usually these players are protected by union and CBA, and they have neither now and might be more apt to claim that collusion led to wrongful termination. Which might not be a wrongful termination suit, it might be something else... I guess I'm just saying that all sorts of new litigation could rear its ugly head should the owners take any "termination" action.

Dumb sheep..More money IS smarter...You are worth what I say you are worth..Just be happy to have a job..Record profits with layoffs to follow, you know the economy stupid...How can you get a raise and I get my bonus for saving money?..DUUHHHH! Why pay you ten dollars an hour when I can outsource for ten dollars a day? Your loyalty is to me, mine is to the money get it right..Ethical is subjective..

jta1975 wrote:There is a reason why "B" movies don't make it to the theater. Because very few would pay for it.

Guess that's why no one watches college football.

Scarecrow.

People watch high school football too. You telling me they'd be okay with that on Sundays as well. You're paying to watch the best of the best on NFL Sundays. And you guys know that. It's about expectations when you shell out your cash.

jta1975 wrote:There is a reason why "B" movies don't make it to the theater. Because very few would pay for it.

Guess that's why no one watches college football.

Scarecrow.

People watch high school football too. You telling me they'd be okay with that on Sundays as well. You're paying to watch the best of the best on NFL Sundays. And you guys know that. It's about expectations when you shell out your cash.

Nobody's watching scab football. I wouldn't pay to see it.

If the Browns are winning, I would. I don't care who's wearing the uniforms as long as they are getting W's.

Besides, some of those scabs would look damn good against other scabs.

Why do they televise division 1 college football games more than they televise division 3 games? People don't watch division 3 football for the same reason I wouldn't want to watch replacement NFL games: it blows.

Y'all watch John Carroll/Otterbein

I'll stick with Alabama/Auburn.

And no, if those games aren't on I'm still not watching the slower, sloppier, less talented guys play. Won't even watch MAC football when it's all that's on.

jta1975 wrote:There is a reason why "B" movies don't make it to the theater. Because very few would pay for it.

They would if there were no "A" movies.

It is a dumb concept to think if the owners cut the best players in the world from the product that these players would be out of work for good. If guys like Manning,Brees,Brady played somewhere else fans would follow if the alternative was watching Charlie Fry.

The relationship between the players and owners is symbiotic. They need each other. That is the way it has always been when you start a company in which you are not the most important factor in the end product. You hire people to do the job in which you can't.

It is a joke to say people would go out of their way and pay top dollar to watch scrubs. Let the Cavs be a perfect example of this. The last few years people knew when each game was and made sure they could tune in or go. The scrubs this year have no buzz and people could care less to tune in. Inferior product generates limited dollars.

To think these great players would just shrivel up and die without the NFL is just as ridiculous as people crying about how much money they make to play a game. We pay for entertainment period.

Sure teachers,policemen,firemen should make more but people would rather save on taxes and use the money for season tickets. That is just how it is so get over the only playing a game mentality. We pay top dollar in this country to be entertained no matter if it is Larry the Cable guy, Garth Brooks, or Lebron James.

The term "work" is subjective. Is it really work for Roger Goddell to be commish? Sure it is his job. Is his "work" worth the 10 million dollars a year he makes?

Does a day trader work harder than an NFL player? Well I guess it depends on what "work" is to you.

Every smuck crying about wanting to get paid to play and thinking he can do it is no different than those yahoos who sing in the high school chorus and think they can really sing. Stop hating it's an ugly look.

I am I mad there is a LOCKOUT, hell ya. This time of the year is the best part for me, but I am not taking the bait in picking sides.

It wouldn't matter. It would be back to being the cream of the crop in short order if the players realized the owners were serious about it.

The draft would continue. In a few years the best college players would be the best pro players. In a few years it would be back to business as usual.

And, a lot of the younger current NFL players would be back too. What other option would they have? Sure, there would be the guys like Brady, Manning, et al. who don't need it anymore, but the majority of them would be back. And I guess they'd have to make their millions while they toil under the unspeakably horrific conditions set forth by the owners. And for the most part they'd still be making millions.

jta1975 wrote:There is a reason why "B" movies don't make it to the theater. Because very few would pay for it.

They would if there were no "A" movies.

It is a dumb concept to think if the owners cut the best players in the world from the product that these players would be out of work for good. If guys like Manning,Brees,Brady played somewhere else fans would follow if the alternative was watching Charlie Fry.

If it were so easy for the players to form their own league, they would've done it already.

Someone needs to pay the players. Someone needs to own the teams. Sure, maybe eventually they could set up a league - it wouldn't be overnight. Manning owns his own team, and Brady owns his own team, and they form a league of 10 teams, but then Manning and Brady become The Man and eventually you're gonna have Owners vs. Players again.

Players have tried time and again to jump the NFL ship for "greener pastures", and it's bombed every single time.

peeker643 wrote:No way for me Hiko. The fact that the grocery store manager wearing the Browns helmet is better than the mechanic in the Steeler helmet wouldn't mean a thing to me.

You can have that win and pay to see it.

Again, I go or tune in to see the best football players in the world do what they do.

When he's wearing a football uniform, he's a football player, not a grocery store manager.

I don't give a fuck who wears the uniform. It's not the Cleveland Browns Featuring Josh Cribbs, it's just the Cleveland Browns. And if the Cleveland Browns are playing, I'll be watching and rooting them on, no matter if they have 53 All Pros or former UPS drivers.

You say you don't watch D3 football when there's D1 to watch, but if D1 ceased to exist, you'd be watching D3 quick enough.

Besides, I loved the scab football back in '87. Not pretty, no, but fun to watch has-beens and never-will-bes taking their one shot at glory. You might not watch, but enough people would that it'd break the players in short order. Again.

But since scab games aren't gonna happen, this really is a moot point.

It would not be the players starting their own league. It would be about people finally being able to compete with the NFL brand.

Guys like Cuban have said many times he wanted some of that football money. He wanted to start a rival league years ago. The UFL cities and not to mention the L.A. market. would come into play if the owners simply locked the players out and started fresh with their own rules of engagement it would not fly.

The top players in the league are not hurting for money and could afford to make stands on principle. The networks protected themselves from scab players after the last experience. A TV contract would come with ease to a league with Manning,Brady,Brees. It would work no doubt about it.

If the threat was not valid the players union would have not leverage. The players are the product. If owners could just ignore them and move on they would have done so already. They need each other plain and simple. But there would be plenty of people with huge check books ready to start an alternative.

It doesn't take a genius to understand that NO OTHER league will flourish as long as the best stay in the NFL. Now, if the best players played some where else.....that's a whole different ball game.

Shutting our local NFL teams would not happen for the die hards but if Hillis,Joe Thomas,Cribbs played on the Akron Tires, then people would find a way to incorporate both. If the Tires offered a better product then the Browns would be in trouble.

jta1975 wrote:It would not be the players starting their own league. It would be about people finally being able to compete with the NFL brand.

Guys like Cuban have said many times he wanted some of that football money. He wanted to start a rival league years ago. The UFL cities and not to mention the L.A. market. would come into play if the owners simply locked the players out and started fresh with their own rules of engagement it would not fly.

The top players in the league are not hurting for money and could afford to make stands on principle. The networks protected themselves from scab players after the last experience. A TV contract would come with ease to a league with Manning,Brady,Brees. It would work no doubt about it.

If the threat was not valid the players union would have not leverage. The players are the product. If owners could just ignore them and move on they would have done so already. They need each other plain and simple. But there would be plenty of people with huge check books ready to start an alternative.

It doesn't take a genius to understand that NO OTHER league will flourish as long as the best stay in the NFL. Now, if the best players played some where else.....that's a whole different ball game.

Shutting our local NFL teams would not happen for the die hards but if Hillis,Joe Thomas,Cribbs played on the Akron Tires, then people would find a way to incorporate both. If the Tires offered a better product then the Browns would be in trouble.

I agree to a point but don't discount the traditions of the zany NFL. Alot of people are tied into those. Personally I believe if the NFL went away and D-1 NCAA was still available, that would be my diversion.

jta1975 wrote: A TV contract would come with ease to a league with Manning,Brady,Brees. It would work no doubt about it.

If the threat was not valid the players union would have not leverage. The players are the product.

I think you have an interesting B School hypothetical, but the reality is it just won't happen. As far as taking a principled stand, do you believe the 3 richest QBs are going to turn their backs on the rest of the NFLPA and jump to a new league and leave their union brothers behind? These guys aren't exactly Gary Danielson.

Also, the "players are the product" is the NBA, not the NFL. Yes, you have managed to mention 3 of the best known players, but after that it's tough to find the other 1,693. However, watching Manning melt down afer every missed assignment by his semi-pro offensive line would be entertaining.

I don't need to be patient, they're going to be shit forever. - CDT, discussing my favorite NFL team

jta1975 wrote:It would not be the players starting their own league. It would be about people finally being able to compete with the NFL brand.

Guys like Cuban have said many times he wanted some of that football money. He wanted to start a rival league years ago. The UFL cities and not to mention the L.A. market. would come into play if the owners simply locked the players out and started fresh with their own rules of engagement it would not fly.

The top players in the league are not hurting for money and could afford to make stands on principle. The networks protected themselves from scab players after the last experience. A TV contract would come with ease to a league with Manning,Brady,Brees. It would work no doubt about it.

If the threat was not valid the players union would have not leverage. The players are the product. If owners could just ignore them and move on they would have done so already. They need each other plain and simple. But there would be plenty of people with huge check books ready to start an alternative.

It doesn't take a genius to understand that NO OTHER league will flourish as long as the best stay in the NFL. Now, if the best players played some where else.....that's a whole different ball game.

Shutting our local NFL teams would not happen for the die hards but if Hillis,Joe Thomas,Cribbs played on the Akron Tires, then people would find a way to incorporate both. If the Tires offered a better product then the Browns would be in trouble.

A. Even if a good chunk of the players flocked to a new league, it would take a while before fans gave their hearts to the Cleveland Shitty Weather/Akron Tires over the Cleveland Browns.

B. In the end, the new league would have the same Owner vs. Player warfare as the NFL.

D. A LOT of players would be very wary about jumping into bed with some new league after the success rate of previous leagues, even if it is called the BMB League (Brady-Manning-Brees). Just because the super-rich NFL stars can afford to take chances doesn't mean the rank-and-file can.

E. Where are they gonna find all the billionaires just dying to own teams (and provide the superior payroll to the NFL that these stars crave) in a business where non-NFL leagues have failed every single time?

F. Sure, they might get some nice TV revenue, but it sure won't be the 9 bil that the NFL gets. And since NBC, ABC/ESPN, CBS, and FOX all have contracts in place with the NFL, who's filling the void? TNT? The History Channel? I doubt the NBC's of the world would be dumping their NFL contracts to jump in bed with a league that could easily be defunct in 2 years, thus burning their NFL bridge forevermore. Networks have been burned before on these upstart leagues.

I have to respectfully disagree with you that a new player-formed league is a possibility (or that it would work).

jta1975 wrote:would come into play if the owners simply locked the players out and started fresh with their own rules of engagement it would not fly.

If the threat was not valid the players union would have not leverage.

Again, the players' leverage is almost entirely based on antitrust law. It has nothing to do with a hypothetical alternative league. The major basis of the current class action lawsuit is, now that there is no NFLPA, the owners can't collectively refuse to honor the existing player contracts in a lockout (among other things). The players have won with that line of argument several times in the past, and they would certainly win again if the owners "started fresh with their own rules of engagement" without the involvement of a new NFLPA.

jta1975 wrote:would come into play if the owners simply locked the players out and started fresh with their own rules of engagement it would not fly.

If the threat was not valid the players union would have not leverage.

Again, the players' leverage is almost entirely based on antitrust law. It has nothing to do with a hypothetical alternative league. The major basis of the current class action lawsuit is, now that there is no NFLPA, the owners can't collectively refuse to honor the existing player contracts in a lockout (among other things). The players have won with that line of argument several times in the past, and they would certainly win again if the owners "started fresh with their own rules of engagement" without the involvement of a new NFLPA.

This is why the owners talking point du jour is "the union"...if it walks like a union and talks like a union and acts en masse like a union...it's a union...no matter what they say about having "decertified"...a transparent procedural ploy.

Not saying the owners win with this tactic....but that's their stance.

"I believe it is the nature of the human species to reject what is true but unpleasant and to embrace what is obviously false but comforting." H.L. Mencken

jta1975 wrote:would come into play if the owners simply locked the players out and started fresh with their own rules of engagement it would not fly.

If the threat was not valid the players union would have not leverage.

Again, the players' leverage is almost entirely based on antitrust law. It has nothing to do with a hypothetical alternative league. The major basis of the current class action lawsuit is, now that there is no NFLPA, the owners can't collectively refuse to honor the existing player contracts in a lockout (among other things). The players have won with that line of argument several times in the past, and they would certainly win again if the owners "started fresh with their own rules of engagement" without the involvement of a new NFLPA.

This is why the owners talking point du jour is "the union"...if it walks like a union and talks like a union and acts en masse like a union...it's a union...no matter what they say about having "decertified"...a transparent procedural ploy.

Not saying the owners win with this tactic....but that's their stance.

Right. And, according to the complaint, the owners explicitly waived this legal argument back when they last settled. I don't know if the players are correct (they are the only ones to make a filing that I've seen), but assuming they are, whether it's just a ploy or not is irrelevant. They get to keep the leverage.

Part of the antitrust issue is that the league cannot impose rules over 32 separate businesses. Can this be alleviated by the league establishing itself as the sole business with 32 branches? The owners stay on in a capacity of owning that branch of the franchise, but the franchise itself (the NFL) is the only individual business?

I'm aware that there a several owners that would never go for that (which is silly, since they're already glorified branches that have to follow league rules), but if they did, would that ix-nay the antitrust arguments?

hiko wrote:Question for those who are smarter than me (aka most of you):

Part of the antitrust issue is that the league cannot impose rules over 32 separate businesses. Can this be alleviated by the league establishing itself as the sole business with 32 branches? The owners stay on in a capacity of owning that branch of the franchise, but the franchise itself (the NFL) is the only individual business?

I'm aware that there a several owners that would never go for that (which is silly, since they're already glorified branches that have to follow league rules), but if they did, would that ix-nay the antitrust arguments?

Probably not. At most, it would probably just replace one set of antitrust claims with another set. For one thing, the process of merging 32 (at least purportedly) competing businesses into one business raises serious market competition issues

hiko wrote:Question for those who are smarter than me (aka most of you):

Part of the antitrust issue is that the league cannot impose rules over 32 separate businesses. Can this be alleviated by the league establishing itself as the sole business with 32 branches? The owners stay on in a capacity of owning that branch of the franchise, but the franchise itself (the NFL) is the only individual business?

I'm aware that there a several owners that would never go for that (which is silly, since they're already glorified branches that have to follow league rules), but if they did, would that ix-nay the antitrust arguments?

Probably not. At most, it would probably just replace one set of antitrust claims with another set. For one thing, the process of merging 32 (at least purportedly) competing businesses into one business raises serious market competition issues

Perhaps, but it's not like there aren't alternatives... CFL, Arena Football, UFL. I'd feel good about the NFL's ability to squirm out of that one.

It would certainly get around the "cartel" standard of the anti-trust law.

I do wonder if there isn't some precedent out there however preventing large corporations from merging and thus taking up more than X amount of the market...

jta1975 wrote: A TV contract would come with ease to a league with Manning,Brady,Brees. It would work no doubt about it.

If the threat was not valid the players union would have not leverage. The players are the product.

I think you have an interesting B School hypothetical, but the reality is it just won't happen. As far as taking a principled stand, do you believe the 3 richest QBs are going to turn their backs on the rest of the NFLPA and jump to a new league and leave their union brothers behind? These guys aren't exactly Gary Danielson.

Also, the "players are the product" is the NBA, not the NFL. Yes, you have managed to mention 3 of the best known players, but after that it's tough to find the other 1,693. However, watching Manning melt down afer every missed assignment by his semi-pro offensive line would be entertaining.

Of course the QBs named would not turn their backs on the rest of the union. They would be sticking up for them. If they didn't care about the rest of them they wouldn't even get involved. They will always be the highest paid players. My example was not made in a point to say these 3 players alone can be the sustain another league.

My point is simply. If the best players played in some other league. That league would be able to directly compete with the NFL.

jta1975 wrote: A TV contract would come with ease to a league with Manning,Brady,Brees. It would work no doubt about it.

If the threat was not valid the players union would have not leverage. The players are the product.

I think you have an interesting B School hypothetical, but the reality is it just won't happen. As far as taking a principled stand, do you believe the 3 richest QBs are going to turn their backs on the rest of the NFLPA and jump to a new league and leave their union brothers behind? These guys aren't exactly Gary Danielson.

Also, the "players are the product" is the NBA, not the NFL. Yes, you have managed to mention 3 of the best known players, but after that it's tough to find the other 1,693. However, watching Manning melt down afer every missed assignment by his semi-pro offensive line would be entertaining.

Of course the QBs named would not turn their backs on the rest of the union. They would be sticking up for them. If they didn't care about the rest of them they wouldn't even get involved. They will always be the highest paid players. My example was not made in a point to say these 3 players alone can be the sustain another league.

My point is simply. If the best players played in some other league. That league would be able to directly compete with the NFL.

I understand your point better. Thanks.

I don't need to be patient, they're going to be shit forever. - CDT, discussing my favorite NFL team

I have no dog in the race. I've said before I want the NFL to remain pretty close to what it is because, right or wrong, it at least gives me the illusion that a small market team is still playing on a level playing field with the large market teams and that only competence in the front office is required to turn a team's fortunes around.

But Jesus, you gotta take care of the guys in the helmets and pads. You abandon them from an insurance standpoint at the very time (after five years) they're likely to develop the issues that resulted from banging heads for years.

You just have to do the right thing there if you're the owners. I understand the costs (not the specifics of course but the argument) but these guys aren't postal workers or claims adjusters. That's mind-boggling to me. Gotta be something better than the system they have that doesn't completely decimate the league.

I have no dog in the race. I've said before I want the NFL to remain pretty close to what it is because, right or wrong, it at least gives me the illusion that a small market team is still playing on a level playing field with the large market teams and that only competence in the front office is required to turn a team's fortunes around.

But Jesus, you gotta take care of the guys in the helmets and pads. You abandon them from an insurance standpoint at the very time (after five years) they're likely to develop the issues that resulted from banging heads for years.

You just have to do the right thing there if you're the owners. I understand the costs (not the specifics of course but the argument) but these guys aren't postal workers or claims adjusters. That's mind-boggling to me. Gotta be something better than the system they have that doesn't completely decimate the league.

But, Peeks, the last NFL offer had significant health care increases for players, especially former players. The NFLPA, however, is concerned about current players, which is why the revenue sharing is the only main contention point at this... uh... point.

6. Owner funding of $82 million in 2011-12 to support additional benefits to former players, which would increase retirement benefits for more than 2,000 former players by nearly 60 percent.

I do sense that the players think the antitrust arguments can barter them greater freedom than they had in the previous CBA, as in getting rid of the cap, un-restricting restricted free agency, and doing away with the franchise tag. To me, these are all bad things.